Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Space Between (2017 film)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep The Space Between (2017 film) and redirect the others to it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Space Between (2017 film)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Three films with no strong claims to passing WP:NFILM, which are all sourced entirely to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all. The "notability" of all three films is stacked on having won minor awards at non-notable film festivals like Buffalo-Niagara or the Toronto Short Film Festival (the latter of which was being falsely misrepresented as TIFF until I corrected it just now), which simply is not an automatic inclusion freebie. All films are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist; RS coverage which verifies something that would pass NFILM is required for an article to become warranted. Bearcat (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. 22:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 22:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep The Space Between (2017 film). I think there's enough coverage to keep it for now: [1] from the Vancouver Sun, [2] from Complex, [3] from TheWrap, [4] from People, [5] from The Hollywood Reporter, [6] from Variety, and [7] from IndieWire. Once it's released and distributed, it'll probably get some reviews. If not, we can figure out what to do then. The other two are short films, and those often have much difficulty in establishing notability. I would redirect them to Amy Jo Johnson. The awards look minor, and I don't see any obvious coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Space Between and redirect the other two per NinjaRobotPirate. While we do have an article on Buffalo Niagara Film Festival, it doesn't look important enough to establish the notability for Bent, and Lines has pretty much nothing going for it. Still, I think Amy Jo Johnson is enough of a redirect target that I don't think we have to delete those. Daß Wölf 01:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Space Between and redirect the other two per the above 2 editors. Can't add much to their evaluations, which appear spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.